A hypothetical, Deathcore. The Unga Bunga tribe of Nigeria has a ritual where any male who does not achieve six feet in height by their 17th birthday is brutally sodomized to death by the taller members of the tribe while their families watch and lament the horrific rape-murders of their sons. This is indeed a cultural tradition. Would it or would it not be acceptable to in some way stop the rectal anarchy occurring in this remote part of Nigeria?

Read my previous post. Same idea, but a different situation

So why is a political factor something that we can interfere with while a cultural one is somehow sacred? Isn't it just as moralizing to say that everyone's opinions are correct and should be respected as it is to try and enforce a moral status quo, just in an opposite direction? That brings me to another question: why is interfering with another culture or nation unacceptable, but interfering with an individual's 'traditions' not?

Because culture is something that has been with a civilization for centuries, while politics can be something as quick as months. Also, if we are to interfere with anything political, it usually has to deal with genocide. And as far as I know, there are very few brutal cultural traditions. And if they were serious enough, wouldn't we be hearing about them on the news and in our history books?

It is unacceptable to interfere with a culture's traditions because they are almost a part of the nation itself, while the individual is something that was started some time in their lifetime, and is about as justifiable as political genocide.

What does length of time have to do with anything? Slavery was a proud tradition throughout human history which has been overturned; is there something wrong with the fact that that happened? When is a particular practice moved from something you can interfere with to something you can't? A hundred years? Two hundred? Half a millennium?

It is unacceptable to interfere with a culture's traditions because they are almost a part of the nation itself, while the individual is something that was started some time in their lifetime, and is about as justifiable as political genocide.

Are you actually saying that interfering with a culture's traditions, for example preventing them mutilating women, is on the same level as genocide?

A hypothetical, Deathcore. The Unga Bunga tribe of Nigeria has a ritual where any male who does not achieve six feet in height by their 17th birthday is brutally sodomized to death by the taller members of the tribe while their families watch and lament the horrific rape-murders of their sons. This is indeed a cultural tradition. Would it or would it not be acceptable to in some way stop the rectal anarchy occurring in this remote part of Nigeria?

Read my previous post. Same idea, but a different situation

So why is a political factor something that we can interfere with while a cultural one is somehow sacred? Isn't it just as moralizing to say that everyone's opinions are correct and should be respected as it is to try and enforce a moral status quo, just in an opposite direction? That brings me to another question: why is interfering with another culture or nation unacceptable, but interfering with an individual's 'traditions' not?

Because culture is something that has been with a civilization for centuries, while politics can be something as quick as months. Also, if we are to interfere with anything political, it usually has to deal with genocide. And as far as I know, there are very few brutal cultural traditions. And if they were serious enough, wouldn't we be hearing about them on the news and in our history books?

It is unacceptable to interfere with a culture's traditions because they are almost a part of the nation itself, while the individual is something that was started some time in their lifetime, and is about as justifiable as political genocide.

What does length of time have to do with anything? Slavery was a proud tradition throughout human history which has been overturned; is there something wrong with the fact that that happened? When is a particular practice moved from something you can interfere with to something you can't? A hundred years? Two hundred? Half a millennium?

I'll give you that. However, slavery was a tradition which was overturned by the nation with slavery's leaders, not by another nation. And I'm talking about worldwide slavery, not just in America. I don't know much about slavery in the Eastern world, but in the Americas it was ended by revolts and law changes, not by multi nation war.

It is unacceptable to interfere with a culture's traditions because they are almost a part of the nation itself, while the individual is something that was started some time in their lifetime, and is about as justifiable as political genocide.

Are you actually saying that interfering with a culture's traditions, for example preventing them mutilating women, is on the same level as genocide?

Actually no, I meant it to sound the complete opposite

I keep parsing and re-parsing that sentence, and I just don't know where I could have gone wrong in my reading comprehension. Either you said something incredibly stupid and are now trying to back off, or my English is much worse than I thought.

_________________Looking up at the stars, I know quite well
That, for all they care, I can go to hell.

It is unacceptable to interfere with a culture's traditions because they are almost a part of the nation itself, while the individual is something that was started some time in their lifetime, and is about as justifiable as political genocide.

Are you actually saying that interfering with a culture's traditions, for example preventing them mutilating women, is on the same level as genocide?

Actually no, I meant it to sound the complete opposite

I keep parsing and re-parsing that sentence, and I just don't know where I could have gone wrong in my reading comprehension. Either you said something incredibly stupid and are now trying to back off, or my English is much worse than I thought.

No, what I meant to say is that its unacceptable to interfere with a culture's traditions because the culture is essentially a part of the nation, while the individual is just one person who could've thought of a law breaking tradition. I may have used justifiable in the wrong way.

I'll give you that. However, slavery was a tradition which was overturned by the nation with slavery's leaders, not by another nation. And I'm talking about worldwide slavery, not just in America. I don't know much about slavery in the Eastern world, but in the Americas it was ended by revolts and law changes, not by multi nation war.

While that may be true, I'm sure you can see how the worldwide abolishment of slavery was certainly a domino effect sort of thing; slavery was not a practice abolished by the world over the course of thousands or even hundreds of years. In that regard, the practices of nations are clearly influencing others. So at what point is such an influence unacceptable? When it's intentional? When the majority of the other nation finds it unacceptable? Or just when nation one uses force to enact such a change on another one?

I'll give you that. However, slavery was a tradition which was overturned by the nation with slavery's leaders, not by another nation. And I'm talking about worldwide slavery, not just in America. I don't know much about slavery in the Eastern world, but in the Americas it was ended by revolts and law changes, not by multi nation war.

While that may be true, I'm sure you can see how the worldwide abolishment of slavery was certainly a domino effect sort of thing; slavery was not a practice abolished by the world over the course of thousands or even hundreds of years. In that regard, the practices of nations are clearly influencing others. So at what point is such an influence unacceptable? When it's intentional? When the majority of the other nation finds it unacceptable? Or just when nation one uses force to enact such a change on another one?

Of course I can see the domino effect. But this influencing of nations seems to be happening for the good. As an American, we aren't influencing others to be gas guzzling, cheeseburger eating, ignorant douchebags. Other nations seem to want to be the complete opposite. So knowing that, wouldn't the other nations want to be the complete opposite? These are our traditions, and aren't most nations trying to do the complete opposite?

every country has differing ideas about drugs, prostitution et al. I do agree that its not the US's right to interfere such as "regime change" to further certain areas of rich industrialists. Making up blantant charges to allow outright invasion is also not a good thing to do but againt he US is the champion of this.

the thing that really makes my pissed about the US is that they don't seem to want to take care of the existing problems within o ur country first. That should be the foremost item on their agendas.

Interesting topic. Should we ("the western world") interfere with other cultures traditions, which are unacceptable and inhuman to us?

I think we shouldn't. I mean who are we to tell them that their way of life is wrong and they should change their traditions. Even if the traditions consists of assraping the shorter ones (as an example posted before).

Don't get me wrong, I do not like such traditions. But I think it's wrong to interfere with their way of living and basically telling them that their traditions, which may be thousands of years old, are wrong and should be changed just because I see it as wrong.

What may be wrong to me can be "good" or "right" to them. Maybe it was necessary for them to assrape their shorter, and thus maybe, weaker ones, for reasons we will never be able to understand/know?

Maybe it was necessary for them to assrape their shorter, and thus maybe, weaker ones, for reasons we will never be able to understand/know?

... And if there is no real justification aside from that it's a tradition?

Something like that would arise from the need of taller people within their tribes. At some point in time in their culture there was a need for tall people and the short people were a huge liability. Now that problem may be long gone, but interference with on aspect of Culture might cause the other parts of it to simply collapse and thusly bring the end to these people.

Don't be ethnocentric, after all we do practice infanticide. Except out infanticide involves a pre-born child and unlike other cultures our infanticide may originate from a decision that the child would be a hassle and not that he has an indecent chance at survival.

Maybe it was necessary for them to assrape their shorter, and thus maybe, weaker ones, for reasons we will never be able to understand/know?

... And if there is no real justification aside from that it's a tradition?

Something like that would arise from the need of taller people within their tribes. At some point in time in their culture there was a need for tall people and the short people were a huge liability. Now that problem may be long gone, but interference with on aspect of Culture might cause the other parts of it to simply collapse and thusly bring the end to these people.

Don't be ethnocentric, after all we do practice infanticide. Except out infanticide involves a pre-born child and unlike other cultures our infanticide may originate from a decision that the child would be a hassle and not that he has an indecent chance at survival.

I'm not trying to imply that it's wrong if there's something that actually necessitates such a practice. I'm asking if it is still right even if there is NO justification given. And they aren't just doing away with him, they're brutally sodomizing him to death, which is absolutely unnecessary.

Whether or not we practice infanticide is a completely separate debate I'm hardly willing to engage in.

_________________

Agonizer wrote:

My views may be extreme, and you may not agree with them. That's your perogative. At least I'm a cum dumpster.

And they aren't just doing away with him, they're brutally sodomizing him to death, which is absolutely unnecessary.

Well, it seems unnecessary because we grow up in the civilized world, where sodomy is horrible and wrong, where rape is horrible and wrong. Perhaps these tribes are so uneducated that they feel like growth is something you can control; for instance, you do not grow tall because you are lazy. I mean, eventually there will only be 6 foot + people in that culture because of artificial selection, but if they were to think that shortness equaled laziness or another negative trait, brutal sodomy would be their ultimate punishment. They must be aware of this ritual from a very early age.

There are aboriginal tribes here in Australia that still punish their criminals in the traditional way, which includes spearing the criminal without the intent to kill, though many die from the wound. Should the government interfere or let them carry on?? If they're accepting government hand outs should they be living under that governments laws??

There are a lot of "traditions" I think the Western World should interfere to stop, female circumcision, shame killings, etc. Humans on a whole should have evolved past such barbaric behaviour.

mpawluk wrote:

Well, it seems unnecessary because we grow up in the civilized world, where sodomy is horrible and wrong, where rape is horrible and wrong.

Remember that your idea of "civilised" and another's idea of "civilised" may not be the same thing.

Too much to ask to take a non-ethnocentric view. Their idea of civilization is different from ours. We see some of their stuff as cruel and unnecessary while they may look at us and wonder how disgusting a human has to be in order to be cutthroat and cruel like in the business world. Maybe it rubs certian people wrong that this sodomy execution is being done, but if the practice still exists, it exists because generations of general consuls have agreed to the tradition. Exceptions exist to any rule as well as culture so no bringing up hypothetical people. Also, I doubt any short people would be born to a group that values height after a few generations of that.

What I find most hilarious in this thread is that something extreme is invented in order to make it seem like it is alright to tamper with cultures. Cultures are delicate and if they exist today it is because they work. If the Western World goes around tampering with everything that doesn't suit Western values (large portion of the world) we will see a lot of collapse between people. Our civilization is based off greed and the will to extort those of lesser status than we. If we introduce this value into random pre-literate civilizations we will see entire societies collapse and many people will die just because we have an idea that we are the best and that's that.

Let's not mention the fact that barbaric customs are completely objective. I might consider it barbaric that an Iraqi girl of 13 marries a man of 35, but others will find it completely alien that you have something against that.

Its pretty obvious that deathcore just came up with his opinion based upon how awesome he felt about himself while saying it, and is now hopelessly arguing that trivial things matter to maintain his buzz. Purposely missing the point. Tradition has no more foundation if it is created today or ten thousnd years ago. People will behave as they see fit, what comes natural to them, regardless.

Well yeah, I guess it would be positive if they wanted it to be stopped, but I personally think it should be the government's decision whether it should be stopped or not.

Why the government? That's a political entity that may or may not have the culture's interests in mind.

Well if the government takes no action, it should still be a civil rights group inside of the tribe. Did the Africans come in and try to stop us when we denied blacks the right to basically everything?

I couldn't think of a better title for this thread, but you'll just have to go along with it.

When I turn on the TV to MSNBC and see these television shows with Chris Hansen investigating Taiwan's child prostitution rings and see people from America trying to shut them down, I get disgusted. It is their culture, not America's. Sure as a majority, we may find it sickening, but if its considered the norm in their culture, why is it our business to interfere? Same thing with anyone trying to stop a culture's traditions. Even in America, if a group isn't actually harming anyone in their practices, why should they be stopped? Even the KKK shouldn't be banned, as long as they don't actually use violence or other torture techniques.

What you're saying is totally wrong. It is not the norm by any means in Taiwan or anywhere else where child prostitution/pornography rings. Any country that considers that kind of stuff the norm must be very third world. It is by no means the norm in most countries in the world, and Taiwan is no exception.

You say we should not intervene then? Okay, there is a reason they do. The reason is that the illegal child pornography/prostitutes are being sold for services and viewing pleasures on American soil. We do not intervene in it if it did not affect us somehow. America is also by no means the only country involved. Britain, Italy, Germany, France, Spain, Japan, China, and India are all involved in the stopping of this kind of stuff. The reason? It's all tied together. The same rings that exist in Taiwan also are connected to rings in those countries as well. Do not think that we are meddling with some foreign culture. We're trying to eradicate and prevent the spread of a disease that should not exist.

Did the Africans come in and try to stop us when we denied blacks the right to basically everything?

Not that I know of. Would they have been wrong to?

No, but I can see where your coming from, but now I see where you are coming from. However, I think it would have caused more problems if they did, because most likely they would have used violence to attempt to free the blacks. That would've probably led to a war with whatever nations of Africa decided to step in. I guess I'm just a big fan of isolationism.

Culture is overrated anyway, some of the time it's being used to obscure some deeper political, economic, social or religious motivation. While I don't agree with cultural imperialism, it seems quite clear that there are some fundamental and universal rights that exist and accrue to humans by virtue of being human. That doesn't excuse invasion of another country, but I think it justifies an outcry on the international scale, especially if there are a sizable number of countries and people against it.

This is disregarding the OP's example of child prostitution as being accepted culture in Taiwan, which as numerous posters have pointed out, is completely wrong and insulting to decent Taiwanese.

I think the problem is, who's going to get to decide if the practice is right or wrong. I think that someone who is part of THAT society, THAT country, THAT culture... happens to be the right person. Because there is no way, under any circumstances, a person from a completely different background will understand the significance of the practice.

The question was, should the U.S. interfere in stopping unethical practices?

If required by a reasonable majority of people from THAT place, it makes sense. It is, in that case, outright violation of human rights.

But if something is not being protested about, it is better left alone. No matter how horrible it may seem to anybody, even in a post of power. That's just a rule and everybody must respect it.

"Any fool can make a rule, and any fool will mind it." - Henry David Thoreau

Just because it is a rule, or a tradition, does not make it good. The question is whether outside countries should care about the citizens of other countries, not if the practices of one culture are okay. The degradation of women in the Middle East is deplorable (among their other deplorable practices under Sharia law), the question is, should other countries care? The answer, I think, as we are becoming a more global society, is yes- but then it comes down to a practical issue of whether the outside world really could feasibly have a net good change. Nobody's pretending human rights violations are okay, I think you misunderstand the issue if you say that a culture should have the ability to do whatever it wants to its citizens.

Clinging onto something just because it is a tradition is extremely foolish. If a tradition sucks, change it.

By the way, is the KKK banned? I thought there was no problem unless they do anything harmful. Nazism is allowed, then why not KKK?

Exactly. A lot of traditions are stupid.

As for as KKK being banned, if you try to enter that as your name on Soul Calibur 3, it will tell you you can't (my cousin tried). I think Nazis is also a banned name on there. However, you can be Ku Klux Klan. It'll be a bit funny when someone with the initials 'KKK' tries to enter those initials, but due to the ban, can't.